Lessons Not Learned - The Innocence Project

wholly unsupported by anything police had unearthed, that the victim’s sister was covering for
someone. 12 Finally, he searched the crime scene and located a key, which he thought might
belong to Correa, but which, in truth had absolutely nothing to do with the crime. 13 These
actions and ones like them might well have prompted open-minded investigators to conclude that
Deskovic merely was an inept (but innocent) amateur detective, but the Peekskill detectives had
already become convinced of his guilt.
Tunnel vision continued to operate. As the police became increasingly convinced of
Deskovic’s culpability, the tactics they employed against him made him appear more guilty in
their eyes. At times, they were highly confrontational, accusing him of the crime and sharply
rejecting his professions of innocence. 14 On other occasions, they were collegial, seemingly
inviting this teenager to play a critical role in their investigation. 15 These tactics, themselves the
product of the narrowing police focus on Deskovic, laid the groundwork for a false confession. 16
Ultimately, detectives drove Deskovic to another town and interrogated him in a 10x 10 room
for hours against the pressure-filled backdrop of a polygraph test. They proceeded as they
did because, by then, they were fully convinced of Deskovic’s guilt. That their target was a
psychologically vulnerable sixteen-year-old boy, who had no previous experience with the
justice system, was of no moment under these circumstances. On the day of the polygraph, they
acted for the avowed purpose of getting a confession. 17 The tactics they employed were designed
for this purpose and, although those tactics were left largely unexamined by the finders of fact
because the interrogation was unrecorded, they succeeded.
Tr. at 1014.
Once Deskovic was arrested, tunnel vision also distorted the prosecution’s behavior.
12 See Testimony of Det. Levine, Trial Tr. at 834.
13 See Testimony of Det. McIntyre, Trial Tr. at 1175, 11247.
14 See Complaint Follow-up Report of Det. McIntyre (acknowledging that he questioned
Deskovic’s account during their first conversation and requested he take polygraph);
Testimony of Det. McIntyre, Trial Tr. at 1159-60 (same); Testimony of Det. David Levine, Trial
Tr. at 710, 815, 849, 852 (told Deskovic that he was a suspect during questioning on January 9 th
and accused him of committing the crime during interrogation on January 10 th ).
15 See Testimony of Inv. Stephens, Trial Tr. at 163 (Deskovic told Stephens that he
was taking the polygraph on January 25 th because police would permit him to participate in their
investigation if he passed).
16 Findley & Scott at 333-40 Saul M. Kassin, “On the Psychology of Confessions:
Does Innocence Put Innocents at Risk?,” 2005 American Psychologist 215, 219-22 (April 2005)
(hereinafter cited as “Kassin”)
17 See Testimony of Inv. Stephens, Trial Tr. at 1034 (acknowledging that goal of
polygraph procedure was to elicit confession).
RePoRT on ConVICTIon oF JeFFReY DesKoVIC
91